From ...
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: C++ briar patch (Was: Object IDs are bad)
Date: 1997/05/28
Message-ID: <3073830464727184@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 244528498
References: <5mfos6$ngp$1@masala.cc.uh.edu> <5mhh8h$gkq@web.nmti.com>
mail-copies-to: never
Organization: Naggum Software; +47 2295 0313; http://www.naggum.no
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.c++
* Peter da Silva
| There's really not much more to lisp than that. Toss in COND, SET, LAMBDA,
| and EVAL and I think you've got it. (Don't beat me up too hard if I missed
| something, it's been a while since I did a lot of lisp). And I'll bet you
| could implement SET by CARing and CDRing around in OBLIST.
"a while"? looks like it was 25 years since you last saw Lisp. *sigh*
in Common Lisp (since 1984), you could use hash tables for sets.
as for your theory of dereferencing pointers, a CONS is an object with two
slots. CAR returns the _contents_ of the first slot, CDR the second. if
you pass an object not created by CONS to CAR, you get a type error.
#\Erik
--
if we work harder, will obsolescence be farther ahead or closer?